Living Within the Lie: Mark Carney, Davos, and the Fiction of Global Rules
A Rare Davos Admission That Shook the Hall
In a speech that received a rare standing ovation at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 20, 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered an unusually blunt diagnosis of the failing rules-based international order. Drawing upon Václav Havel’s idea of “living within a lie,” Carney urged middle powers to abandon comforting illusions and adopt what he termed “values-based realism.”
The address was widely praised for its candour. However, it also triggered intense debate, particularly over whether this honesty arrived far too late. Critics argue that leaders such as Carney benefited for decades from the very system they now denounce, only questioning it when they themselves became targets. This TNT article examines the key sections of Carney’s speech related to the rules-based international order, quoting directly from the transcript, followed by a critical debrief exposing the enduring double standards embedded within that system.
The Illusion of the Rules-Based International Order
Admitting the Fiction That Sustained Western Prosperity
“For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful. And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.”
Debrief — Complicity in a System Built on Selective Enforcement
Here, Carney openly acknowledges that Western middle powers such as Canada and many EU states were complicit in sustaining a fiction. They knew the rules-based international order was skewed in favour of the strongest actors, primarily the United States and its allies. Yet, they accepted this imbalance because it delivered stability, security, and economic advantage.
This admission mirrors long-standing Global South critiques of a “gang-led” international system. Regime-change wars in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, unilateral sanctions against Iran and Venezuela, and selective enforcement of international law all coexisted with lofty rhetoric about universal norms. When India pursued its legitimate economic interests by purchasing discounted Russian oil after the 2022 Ukraine conflict, without violating any binding embargo, it faced sustained Western pressure.
India refined that oil into non-Russian products per so called ‘rules based international order, stabilised global prices, and saved billions. Nevertheless, by 2025, the United States imposed duties on Indian exports, while the European Union banned refined derivatives under its sanctions regime. Simultaneously, Western nations quietly continued importing Russian energy through legal loopholes. Carney’s complaint emerges only when Canada itself faces coercive pressure, including US tariff threats linked to Arctic and Greenland-related resources. There is no apology for past coercion, only a pivot to realism once the costs become personal.
The Rupture and the End of Mutual Benefit
From Integration to Weaponisation
“This bargain no longer works.
A rupture, not a transition. Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.
But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.
You cannot ‘live within the lie’ of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
The multilateral institutions on which middle powers have relied — the WTO, the UN, the COP — the very architecture of collective problem solving, are under threat.”
Debrief — When the Weapon Turns Inward
Carney correctly identifies a rupture in which economic tools are openly weaponised. Sanctions, tariffs, and financial infrastructure have become instruments of coercion rather than cooperation. Yet, this diagnosis conveniently ignores who pioneered these tactics.
After 2022, the West imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia. However, it simultaneously criticised India for filling supply gaps in the global oil market. By mid-2025, US tariffs targeted Indian goods linked to Russian crude. In January 2026, the EU’s eighteenth sanctions package extended penalties to refined products from India and Turkey.
This occurred even as the United States continued importing Russian Uranium and increased imports of Russian LNG and Europe selectively navigated price caps. Now, as US trade coercion increasingly affects allies, including Canada, the system is suddenly declared broken. The western leaders rarely apologise to states like India for past pressures. Instead, they recast their discomfort as moral awakening.
Strategic Autonomy and the Uneasy Path Forward
A Call for Autonomy Without Isolation
“And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions — that they must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.
And this impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.
But let’s be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.
And there’s another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from ‘transactionalism’ will become harder to replicate.
Hegemons cannot continually monetise their relationships.
Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. They’ll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty — sovereignty that was once grounded in rules, but will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.”
Debrief — Advice the Global South Learned Long Ago
Carney’s advocacy of strategic autonomy is logical. However, it rings hollow when viewed against Western behaviour over the past two decades. India’s reduction in Russian oil dependence by late 2025 was driven not by principle but by sustained Western pressure. Meanwhile, Western nations quietly secured their own energy arrangements.
Critiques argue that Carney’s speech amounts to a confession that Western leaders long understood the rules-based international order was fraudulent. Nevertheless, they supported illegal wars, sanctions, and occupations because those actions delivered material benefits. Only when coercion turned inward, such as US pressure over Arctic sovereignty, did objections emerge.
Living the Truth and the Role of Middle Powers
Naming Reality Without Euphemism
“What would it mean for middle powers to ‘live the truth’?
First it means naming reality. Stop invoking ‘rules-based international order’ as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.
It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticise economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the old order to be restored, it means creating institutions and agreements that function as described.
And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion. Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government’s immediate priority. And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence — it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.”
Debrief — Truth Spoken Only After Exposure
This is the moral core of Carney’s speech, yet it also exposes its central contradiction. Western governments consistently applied double standards, sanctioning Russia while purchasing its energy and penalising India for identical behaviour. Now, faced with economic intimidation from Washington, Canada invokes consistency and truth.
Critiques argue this not as a principled shift but as a reaction to vulnerability. Western leaders will not apologise to Global South nations for decades of coercion. Instead, they will relabel survival instincts as enlightened realism.
Fiction Acknowledged, Not Repented
Mark Carney’s Davos speech represents a significant admission that the rules-based international order functioned as a “useful fiction.” It delivered stability and prosperity to its beneficiaries while enabling wars, sanctions, and economic coercion against weaker states. Nations such as India experienced this imbalance firsthand when neutral economic decisions attracted disproportionate punishment.
As the United States increasingly turns its coercive tools inward, targeting even allies, the fiction is becoming unsustainable. Carney’s call for values-based realism may resonate with middle powers, but for much of the Global South, it confirms what was already known. The system was never neutral. Whether this rupture leads to a fairer multipolar order or simply a rebranded hierarchy remains the unresolved question.
